this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
89 points (100.0% liked)
PC Gaming
13034 readers
917 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Very bad
Isn't this a good thing? Similar to Valve, now the owner of GOG should be independent and not try to please share holders. He is the original founder, so its not like some random ex EA CEO or someone rich from Arabia or like that. Unless there is evidence, I give him the benefit of doubt and hope for the best.
And hopefully he will support Linux... but that is a bit of random thought.
Why?
Because the part where he bought shares from employees was omitted. Make no mistake, he will slaughter GOG the moment his eyes turn into dollars
And how do you come to this conclusion with a certainty, that you can say that in a forum? I don't think he will, there is no evidence for that. Or does he have a bad track record?
That's a pretty standard process for a company acquisition. You buy 100% of the shares of the company, including those held by employees.
They must've agreed to this though, right? You can't just steal shares. (?)
Depends. Employees can be forced to sell their shares. There are also other scenarios where shareholders are forced to sell for other reasons.
Depends on the share structure.
If the shares are retractable, then the corporation can buy them back whenever they feel like it. The shareholders consented to this at the point of allotment, because they are supposed to have read the articles before purchasing.
The monostructure of shares is one of those things that movies/t.v. shows nearly always gets wrong. I was happy that Succession got it right, because they definitely needed to for that story.
If you've ever heard "I now own 51% of this company!!" on a show, they are hand-waiving things so hard. Some resolutions need a larger than 2/3 majority by the laws of the country/region for specific tasks, and some corporations have extremely restrictive quorum requirement.
You can. We have a whole country of Russia where the shares were stolen after the Soviet Union collapsed.